|
(The following is Mr.
McKinsey’s lengthy response to the first section of the above
letter as it appears in the April 1987 edition of Biblical
Errancy).
Dear JW. After several
months of correspondence it’s rather obvious, but unfortunate,
that you have a notable array of shortcomings including a
failure to listen very well, a strong propensity to belabor
points that have already been answered, a tendency to
uncritically parrot pat answers learned in Bible class and/or
seminary, a deceptive and dishonest inclination to build
strawmen for appearances sake, a poor grasp of logical
processes in key areas, an attraction to glittering
generalities rather than evidence, and a lamentable lack of
comprehension of the overall imbroglio in which you find
yourself. You hear what you want to hear, what you have been
told to internalize. Your letters exude a distinct aura of
deja vu and reek with examples of each failing. Apparently,
you still don’t understand the problem but I’ll go through it
one more time as succinctly as possible. Hopefully the
audience can endure the repetition. I’m tempted to say, just
re-read our correspondence and you’ll see the error of your
ways, but I don’t think you’d do that any more than you’d read
all of our back issues as I suggested. First, I never
said, much less insisted, there was a textual variation in the
Hebrew at Isaiah 7:14 nor did I say there was a textual
variant between Matt. 19:18 KJ (‘Thou shalt not murder”) and
Rom. 13:9 KJ (“Thou shalt not kill”). You attributed a
position to me and then proceeded to dismantle your strawman.
I never said the dispute was over text rather than rendering
nor did I say how the contradiction arose. All I said was that
a contradiction existed. Specifically, I stated the following
which you chose to ignore. “You said there was no difference
between Matt. 19:18 and Rom. 13:9 because both came from ‘ou
phoneuseis’ in Greek... The translators of the KJV say
‘murder’ is the proper word in Matt. 19:18. while ‘kill’ is
the best term to use in Rom. 13:9. Are you saying they don’t
know the difference, that they don’t know how to translate?
Are you saying you know Greek and Hebrew better than those who
assembled the KJV? They say there is a difference, while you
say there isn’t....several of the newest versions agree with
the King James....8 The dispute as to whether ‘almah'
in Isaiah 7:14 means a ‘virgin’ or a ‘young woman’ has never
been resolved, I could become one of the world’s greatest
Hebrew/Greek scholars and still find many knowledgeable people
who disagree with my interpretation. So who is right? Who
knows Greek and Hebrew best? 9 Many of these men have
devoted decades to these languages (far more years than the 24
you have lived--Ed.) (Issue #44, p. 4). Later on page 4 of
Issue 46 I provided three reasons translators may disagree
with your equating of Matt. 19:18 with Rom. 13:9: (a) you
picked inaccurate manuscripts, (b) you chose accurate
manuscripts with identical words having different meanings, or
(c) the original text is so imprecise as to be susceptible to
several interpretations. As I stated months ago, your
disagreement is with your colleagues as much as me. If all the
manuscripts say “ou phoneuseis” as you contend and the words
have identical meanings as you allege, then you have only
scaled two lesser hurdles to reach an even higher barrier,
namely, what does the Greek mean. If scholars can’t agree on
how to translate the manuscripts, even though there are no
textual differences, then what the text says is of no
consequence. Locating the problem’s source is of less
importance to this publication than noting the fact that it
exists. If recognized experts give contradictory
interpretations of the same words, then we have a problem
equal in magnitude to that of contradictions between
manuscripts. That’s the hurdle you either refuse to recognize
or can’t surmount. If you think you have the solution then
tell us what Matt. 19:18, Rom 13:9, and Isa. 7:14 say in
English. 10 Whatever response you give will
prove you view yourself as more knowledgeable in Greek and
Hebrew than recognized experts in the field. If so, I again
recommend that you write your own version of the Bible as did
Wycliffe, Tyndale. Know, Lamsa, Moffatt, and Fenton. If you’re
as capable as you seem to believe, then follow their lead and
by all means send me a copy. You don’t seem to realize that
translating or rendering is as serious a problem as
disagreements among manuscripts. Contradictions in
one instance are as fatal
as in the other. What difference
would it make if there were no contradictions among the
manuscripts if authorities still couldn’t agree on what they
said; the practical result would be the same.
You erroneously created a
strawman when you said I accused you of picking “inaccurate
manuscripts among the thousands available.” In point (b) above
I repeated my original charge that your fellow apologists many
(sic?) so contend. You also erred with another strawman when
you said I “postulated a difference in meaning between the two
instances of the same word,” i.e. “ou phoneuseis.” I
postulated nothing of the sort.11 I originally said in
point (c) above that your critics or fellow apologists may see
a difference in meaning between two instances of the same
word. On page 4 of Issue 46 1 noted that the word "pound”
could have many different meanings. Your problem is with your
colleagues while BE is primarily concerned with the bottom
line, the contradiction that’s present. Whether its among
manuscripts or interpretations of those manuscripts is of
secondary importance. The result is the same. People don’t
know what to believe. Even if the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts
were in unison throughout, which is by no means true, the
Bible would still be of no value in many areas because of
contradictions within and between
versions.
12
Second,
with reference to these same verses, I stated that the
problems problems associated with lower (textual) criticism
seem to elude you, JW” (sic) and you responded by sending me
two of your papers on textual criticism. How two textually
critical papers on topics A and B, assuming they are valid
throughout, proves your analysis with respect to topic C is
correct, eludes me, JW.13 Using that kind of logic I
might as well not grade Johnny’s paper because he got 100’s on
the last two. Isn’t that known as a non sequitor?
Logic is also sadly
deficient when you challenge me "to dispute the findings of
such scholars as Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland...." You mean I’m
supposed to research their data? That’s your responsibility,
not mine. Since the burden of proof lies on he who alleges,
you, not I, are obligated to provide the findings. Imagine a
defense attorney in court doing nothing more than saying, "I
have three witnesses corroborating my client’s testimony.
Prove them wrong." What do you think the judge would say? I
seriously doubt he would instruct the prosecutor to research
their data to see if it’s true.
14
Third,
and in close conjunction with what has gone before, is your
attraction to glittering generalities and summations to the
jury without evidence.
15 You said I "did not at all
deal with the facts... relevant to our main discussion” which
is wholly inaccurate. I not only dealt with them but did so in
some detail. The problem is that you didn’t like what you
heard and chose to ignore that which did not fit your
preconceptions of biblical criticism.
16 I again
recommend that you re-read our dialogue, especially my
responses in Issues 44, 46, and 47. You made a blanket
indictment of some comments I made on page 4 of Issue 46
without providing evidence to the contrary. Specifically you
denounced my disbelief that the original writings ever
existed, my belief that textual criticism involves educated
guesses, and my assertion that apologists can’t prove with
certainty that most contradictions are the result of copyist
errors.
17 Yet, you provided nothing than another
demeaning generalization with respect to my knowledge of the
field. It’s not that I “demonstrate a lamentable lack of
knowledge of the field” hut that you demonstrate not only a
lamentable lack of evidence for your sweeping generalizations
and those of the people you quote with a mindset indicative of
those who have been told what to accept as valid criticism and
reply. Your repetition of the common apologetic defense that
variations in the text provide “the means of its own
correction” is not only notably unsubstantiated by concrete
examples but exposed by my “homicide detective” analogy.
Following your logic, one could more accurately recreate the
“original manuscripts" as the number of contradictions and
inconsistencies between and within manuscripts increased. I’ve
never seen a solid example of this apologetic ploy which
receives a lot of play but no proof. It’s comparable to saying
that “the more chaotic things become the clearer they are.”
18
Incidentally, you built
another strawman by intentionally giving a misleading
impression of what I said regarding the original writings. I
did not flatly state they never existed. I said there is
little reason to believe they did. As in an earlier discussion
of Jesus, which you apparently refuse to read, I never said he
didn’t exist; I said there is practically no extrabiblical
evidence that he did.
In essence, then, if you
want to contend there is no contradiction in the Greek
manuscripts between Matt. 19:18 and Rom. 13:9 while admitting
these verses should be stricken from the Bible because
reliable, non-contradictory interpretations don’t exist, I
have no objection in this instance or others we could discuss.
The result is the same. The verses mean nothing because nobody
definitely knows what they are saying; only contradictory
translations exist.
Again, if you’re sure you
know their correct meaning, then, by all means, translate them
into English.
I look favorably upon this
discussion in general and the kill/murder example in
particular because they strike at the heart of the
Greek/Hebrew escapist defense and the basic fallacy contained
therein. The principle underlying this discussion is also
applicable to other verses of crucial importance.
In concluding, several
additional observations are in order. First, you’re not
really interested in objective scholarship and a comprehensive
discussion of the Bible, JW, as much as forcing me to say
uncle on one point. This accounts for your narrow focus and
intense concentration. Your limited range of concern and
failure to confront the substantive issues I’ve posed in prior
issues only confirms my belief that you’re insecure in other
areas and, like VT in earlier issues, are desperately trying
to put me on the defensive. VT became almost obsessed with his
“Sabbath Days Journey” problem to the exclusion of all else.
If I followed that tactic, many an apologist could be nailed
to the wall while many readers would become thoroughly bored
with the repetition. One might have some respect for your
scholarship if you discussed a far wider range of issues as do
more capable apologists such as Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell,
and Norman Geisler. They exhibit more intellectual honesty by
facing a much broader spectrum. 19 On page 5 of
November’s issue (#47) 1 said “I’d especially like for you to
address more substantive problems such as most of those posed
on pages 2 and 3 of Issue #34.” So far, your silence has been
deafening. Literally hundreds of statements with respect to
the Bible’s validity have been made throughout the history of
this publication and the fact that your criticisms have been
so narrow in scope is practically an endorsement of the 98%
outside of your purview. Second, having read several
issues of Alpha and Omega’s publication and witnessed the
dearth of meaningful material contained therein, I’d say you’d
do well to look homeward before complaining about other
periodicals being intellectually wanting.
20
And
finally, please don’t send critical letters while
asking that they not be published. We prefer open debate so
all can judge for themselves. Moreover, insufficient time is
available for protracted off-camera discussions with single
individuals. 21
End of Debate
[Note: On July 18th, 1987 Mr. McKinsey appeared on
The Dividing Line, the radio ministry of Alpha and
Omega Ministries. I brought up the main issue that we
debated above - that of the supposed contradiction between
Jesus and Paul. Mr. McKinsey was completely unable to defend
his original charge at all - he had rather to go to a
discussion of translations just as he did above. He
masterfully avoided answering my question when I asked him if
he was aware of the fact that Jesus and Paul had said the same
thing before I had written to him. I do not believe
that he did, but he would not answer that question when put to
him. The best Mr. McKinsey could do was to challenge me to
write my own translation and send it to him for his review,
Since he admitted on the air that he could not read Greek or
Hebrew. I’m not sure how he could evaluate such a project
anyway. Should you wish to hear the discussion. write and ask
for the tape from Alpha and Omega Ministries.]
Notes
8. What Mr. McKinsey seems
ignorant of here is the fact that translations are not
done by one big group sitting around discussing these things.
Rather, translations are done by groups - one group might do
the Gospels, another the Pauline epistles. etc. Therefore. it
is impossible to say that the KJV translators specifically
meant to differentiate between these two passages. Further,
McKinsey will on numerous occasions accuse me of being in
disagreement with scholars who are far better trained than I.
He accuses me of putting myself up as some sort of expert.
Problem is. McKinsey never sites so much as one
“expert" who disagrees with me.
Not once!
9. It
absolutely must be pointed our here exactly what Mr. McKinsey
is doing. Aside from the fact that everything Mr. McKinsey is
here bringing up has already been answered in previous
letters. I must point out that Mr. McKinsey is here abandoning
his original charge and coming up with another one, and then
faulting me for not addressing an issue that I never intended
to address in the first place. If the reader will look back at
the original quotations from Biblical Errancy, one will
discover that what Mr. McKinsey first said was as follows:
"Jesus and Paul can't seem to agree on the wording of the 6th
Commandment regarding killing." Now that it has been shown
conclusively that Jesus and Paul did agree on the wording of
the commandment (as McKinsey admitted above). He is forced to
change his original charge - now he is dealing with what he
sees as “problems in translation.” What does that have to do
with his original charge? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What
people 2,000 years later would do in translating ou
phoneuseis into a language that didn't even exist yet was
probably of little concern to Paul or to Jesus. Jesus and Paul
were in perfect agreement as to what the 6th Commandment said
- McKinsey is shown to be wrong, but is just as obviously
unwilling to admit it. When I began corresponding with him, it
was my intention to deal only with the issues and not with a
lot of side issues. McKinsey will criticize me for so doing,
mainly to direct attention away from the fact that it
is he who has avoided the real issue.
10. Can you imagine someone faulting Shakespeare for writing
something in English that is difficult to translate into
German? Can you imagine saying that the difficulty in
translation from English to German is as serious as not
knowing what it says in English? That is exactly what McKinsey
is saying here.
11. I
will leave it to the individual reader to decide whether Mr.
McKinsey is correct in charging me with the creation of 'strawmen’
as he puts it. The implications of Mr. McKinsey’s words in his
last response were very clear.
12. Therefore, anything not written in English is useless, for
there will always be so-called "translational difficulties"
present! Good logic!
13. Again Mr. McKinsey misses the whole point (or rather, changes
the point of discussion in the middle of the river) - he had
stated that the "problems associated with lower (textual)
criticism seem to elude” me, and I simply provided him with
evidence that he was wrong. I am, very familiar with the
process of textual criticism and have taught informal seminars
on that subject. The papers sent to him simply proved that he
was wrong in saying that I was unfamiliar with the area of
textual criticism.
14. The problem is, it was Mr. McKinsey who was attacking the
Bible and the subject of textual criticism. It was he who was
making completely unfounded and untrue allegations, and it was
he who was showing an abysmal ignorance of the entire subject
of textual criticism. Therefore, since it was he who was
alleging, it is he who must provide the data. The simple fact
is Mr. McKinsey is completely unable to deal with the facts as
presented by the above mentioned scholars.
15. I
must admit guilt at this point. I did attempt to be as brief
as possible, and I also assumed that my opponent in the debate
would be aware of the scholarly material on the subject. In
respect to the latter point, I was obviously wrong - Mr.
McKinsey proved himself to be very unfamiliar with the
scholarly arena of discussion. Relevant to the former point, I
made the mistake of trying to keep my responses brief due to
the fact that BE is only six type-written pages long. I could
have sent McKinsey pages and pages and pages of documentation
and writing - but very little of it would have been printed.
So, I stayed on the issue and tried to summarize the argument
as much as possible. Mr. McKinsey will spend quite some time
criticizing me for this.
16. It is amusing to note that this statement is a fantastic
attempt of a “glittering generality” and a "summation” without
any evidence. Mr. McKinsey does not know what I am thinking,
nor why I react in certain ways, so he has no basis upon which
to say this.
17. Actually. Mr. McKinsey did not mention anything about
contradictions relevant to “copyist errors” - if you wilt
reference his original comment, he was talking about textual
variants, not contradictions. There is a world of difference
there.
18.
Here again Mr. McKinsey shows absolutely no familiarity with
textual criticism. The use of ”famities" of manuscripts that
contain similar variants (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine,
etc.) in textual criticism is very common amongst all who have
taken the time to study it. Mr. McKinsey seemingly has not
taken that time.
19. Here Mr. McKinsey is forced to throw in the proverbial “red
herring’ to get the attention off of the fact that he is
avoiding the issue even to the point of deleting half of my
letter. I believe the reason for the deletion of that section
of the letter is clear - he could not answer the clear errors
he had made. Now he attacks me for not having dealt with three
years worth of his publications. And just how was I supposed
to do that? If Mr. McKinsey would provide me with half of his
publication each month, I would gladly deal with the various
points he has brought up in the past. As it is, I have been
unable to see any other single person get more space in BE
than I did in our debate, Mr. McKinsey, of course, would not
be aware of the fact that I have dealt with the vast majority
of his attacks on the Bible in the past as they we're brought
up by members of various pseudo-Christian cult groups that I
have been involved in evangelizing. But the point again is
this - I wrote to Mr. McKinsey on three specific points. Why
should I be faulted for following that topic to its
conclusion? Is it my fault that Mr. McKinsey made as many
substantive errors as he did in his replies?
20. I
could fault Mr. McKinsey for not having dealt with the
many issues brought up in our publication of The Dividing
Line to which McKinsey here alludes - but I won’t. That
would be using his logic. By the way, should you wish to
receive this publication from Alpha and Omega Ministries,
write and request it free of charge.
21.
Mr. McKinsey is here referring to the letters I had written to
him asking if he was going to ever print this final letter, I
also mentioned in one letter one other issue relevant to the
"King James Only” controversy, to which he must be referring
here.
Dealing
with Common Questions and Objections |
